The appellant appealed a conviction for assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident where a nightclub security employee restrained a patron in a headlock during an attempt to eject him from the premises.
The trial judge accepted the complainant’s version of events and rejected the accused’s evidence that the injury occurred accidentally when both men slipped and struck a bar.
On appeal, the court held that the trial judge’s reasons were legally insufficient because they failed to explain why the Crown witnesses were believed and why the accused’s evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.
The reasons were largely conclusory and failed to address material contradictions, possible witness collusion, and corroborating defence evidence.
The deficiencies prevented meaningful appellate review.
A new trial was ordered.